Brendan Hunter
EDAD 774
Wilhelmena Sims
Sept. 25, 2004
What Does It Mean? Abbeville County School District, et al.
v. The State of South Carolina, et al. Ruling
I stepped off the bus onto a gravel road next to a low-cropped field whose grasses had turned
golden and fragile in the South Carolina heat. Pollen and dust kicked up behind the bus as it
disappeared over the earth’s arc, and I sneezed. I look around like a lost child. However, I was
actually in one of South Carolina’s urban areas, Columbia. Accustomed to riding either
Greyhound or metro buses everywhere I went, within big northern cities as well as Southern rural
areas, travel to me had become a mile-by-mile study of the American condition. My mind had
become a scrapbook; perhaps, an almanac of the effects of American history. My mental map told
me South Carolina, particularly, and the South, generally, did not have the type of robust middle
class that is so obvious in many northern states, where the cities stretch out to well-manicured
suburbs. People either seemed to either live in old, stately mansions, in ranch houses with indoor
plumbing, or in wooden boxes that have outhouses. The type and locations of South Carolina’s
housing is important for the same reasons it is in many states: education. Increasingly, property
taxes have become a major means of funding education within the state.1 In 2003, arguments
were heard in the South Carolina Circuit Court about the “minimally adequate education” and
“educational opportunity” that the South Carolina Supreme Court had ruled that all South
Carolina students are entitled to receive.
The outcome of Abbeville County School District, et al. v. The State of South Carolina, et al. was
the most important ruling affecting education in South Carolina since Brown v. the Topeka Board
of Education.2 In the April 1999 decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the
education clause of the South Carolina Constitution mandates the state’s General Assembly to
provide the opportunity for each child in the state to receive a “minimally adequate” education.
They defined a “minimally adequate” education as the opportunity for each child to learn to (1)
read, write, and speak English, (2) have academic and vocation skills, and (3) to have knowledge
1
Adequacy in Education. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. 2004.
Report Prepared for public docket. http://www.sc-school-case.com/education-trial-pdf/56.pdf
2
Adequacy in Education. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. 2004.
1
Brendan Hunter
EDAD 774
Wilhelmena Sims
Sept. 25, 2004
of mathematics and physical science; economic, social, and political systems, and of history and
governmental processes.3
However, poorer school districts in the state sued, asking the Circuit Court to consider
demographics—the fact that impoverished students are at risk for educational failure, and to
consider whether the State has designed support programs for at risk students and whether the
State has provided at risk children with the resources needed, or opportunity. The plaintiffs asked
the Court to determine, What is a “minimally adequate” education? What constitutes
“opportunity”? How the State is to assess whether the opportunity to receive a minimally
adequate education has been received?4 The plaintiffs also point out that the State has never
conducted its own study on the costs of implementing its own school legislation, and has ignored
all independent studies in its funding of the State’s schools. Conversely, the State asked the Court
to find that since 40% of students in the affected districts were meeting the State’s assessments
for advancing to the next grade level that the State was meeting its responsibility to provide the
opportunity for students to receive a minimal education, and that the students who do not meet
the State’s assessment minimums are not meeting them because they do not choose to.5
Bobby Stepps, the State’s attorney, argued that the suing districts are not satisfied with equal
funding among districts. They want more funding than wealthier districts receive. To Mr. Stepps,
poverty is the real culprit, and he says you can’t legislate equal income.6 Carl Epps, the attorney
for the plaintiffs, argued that “overfunding” just makes up for years of unequal funding.7 Epps
Report Prepared for public docket. http://www.sc-school-case.com/about-adequate-education.cfm
3
Adequacy in Education. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. 2004.
Report Prepared for public docket. http://www.sc-school-case.com/
4
Adequacy in Education. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. 2004.
Report Prepared for public docket. http://www.sc-school-case.com/education-trial-pdf/56.pdf
5
Adequacy in Education. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. 2004.
Report Prepared for public docket. http://www.sc-school-case.com/education-trial-pdf/56.pdf
6
The Post and Courier. Charleston.net. State School Funding Under Fire. Seanna Cox. Sept. 21, 2003.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/092103/sta_21edutrial.shtml
2
Brendan Hunter
EDAD 774
Wilhelmena Sims
Sept. 25, 2004
also pointed out that in 1960 the State provided 70.9% of the funding for education. The level in
2002 was 41.89%. The home values in the districts he represents range from one-fifth to one-half
the value of the State average.8 Further, Epps point out the Education Finance Act (EFA) of 1977
guarantees an educational program to each student based on need—not geographic location
within the State. When the EFA was mandated, the State paid almost all fringe benefits and
students transportation costs.9 Gradually, paying those costs has shifted to the counties, and Epps
points out that the State has only fully funded the EFA for eight of the twenty-six years it has
existed. Because of the Education Finance Act of 1977, districts with more taxpaying ability,
such as Charleston County, get less money than those that lack the businesses and high-dollar
property needed to raise money through local taxes. But the EFA is the only education funding
formula that takes wealth into consideration. The EFA formula accounts for about 52 percent of
the funds schools receive.10 The plaintiff’s argued that their districts lacked the funds to
implement many remedial programs. Children in those districts need more time-on-task, highly
qualified teachers, remedial programs, and after-school and summer school. They require more
time in the classroom than other students.
The Educational Accountability Act (EAA) of South Carolina mandates that schools develop
individual educational plans for individual students, retain them in the grades they’re in, if
necessary, and provide remedial programs.11 Districts with few at risk students spend a much
7
The State.com. Is 'minimally adequate' education good enough? July 27, 2003. Bill Robinson.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/living/education/6394882.htm
8
Adequacy in Education. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. 2004.
Report Prepared for public docket. http://www.sc-school-case.com/education-trial-pdf/56.pdf
9
Adequacy in Education. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. 2004.
Report Prepared for public docket. http://www.sc-school-case.com/education-trial-pdf/56.pdf
10
Paying for Inequality: The Costs of an Inherently Disparate System of Funding Public Schools in South
Carolina. Amanda Presley.
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=south+carolina+supreme+court+minimal+education&ei=UTF8&cop=mss&u=www.freetimes.com/News%26comm/Special%2520Stories/inequality100301.html&w=south+carolina+supreme+cou
rt+minimal+education&d=7120682233&icp=1&.intl=us
3
Brendan Hunter
EDAD 774
Wilhelmena Sims
Sept. 25, 2004
smaller percentage of their budgets on such programs. Most of the plaintiff districts have hired
“teacher specialists”, who are master teachers that often work one-on-one with students after
school and on weekends.12 The scores in some of the schools in the districts are inching up.
However, many educators, such a teacher specialist, Margie Reed, are wondering about the long
turn affects of the Abbeville County School District, et al. v. The State of South Carolina, et al.
ruling.13 The “No Child Left Behind Reform Act” mandated by the federal government demands
that every child does school work at a "proficient" level by the 2013-14 school year.14 To many
teachers in South Carolina there appears to be a gap between “minimally adequate” and
“proficient”. Exactly what that gap comprises is what the lawsuit seeks to answer. South
Carolina teachers in the poorer districts have pointed out that technology, for instance, is
neglected in the “minimally adequate” ruling. Can those districts afford it? Instructional
technology, and keeping up with technological changes, is increasingly eating up a large
proportion of school districts’ discretionary funds. It is estimated that in 1998 instructional
technology spending for K-12 was $7.2 billion or an average of $113.00 per child per school
year.15 Research also indicates that instructional technology is more expensive for poorer districts
to implement than in wealthier ones. Most technology expenditures so far have been directed at
infrastructure. Wi-fi, computer networks… require modern wiring, air conditioning, and security
(Pelavin 1997). Moreover, the schools with the greatest need are the ones whose students are also
least likely to have access to computers and the Internet at home.
11
Adequacy in Education. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. 2004.
Report Prepared for public docket. http://www.sc-school-case.com/education-trial-pdf/56.pdf
12
The State.com. Is 'minimally adequate' education good enough? July 27, 2003. Bill Robinson.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/living/education/6394882.htm
13
The State.com. Is 'minimally adequate' education good enough? July 27, 2003. Bill Robinson.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/living/education/6394882.htm
14
The State.com. Is 'minimally adequate' education good enough? July 27, 2003. Bill Robinson.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/living/education/6394882.htm
15
Pelavin Research Institute (1997). "Investing in School Technology: Strategies to Meet the Funding
Challenge." Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education. Available on-line at http://
www.ed.gov/pubs/techinvest . http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_8/startpage.htm
4
Brendan Hunter
EDAD 774
Wilhelmena Sims
Sept. 25, 2004
Abbeville County School District, et al. v. The State of South Carolina, et al. is not yet old
enough for South Carolina and its districts to know its long-term effects. Some arguments appear
to just be commonsense, such as How does technological training fit with the Abbeville ruling?
Others are legal. The South Carolina Supreme Court, State Legislature, and the US Government
have mandated educational outcomes and/or opportunities. However, “opportunity”, “outcomes”,
and “minimal” are not operational definitions. What does it mean to have “opportunity”? How do
we assess it? Since tests scores are not improving for all who have assess to remediation
programs, it seems reasonable to assert that money will not solve all of South Carolina’s
educational problems. However, what level of funding is needed varies by assessment scores and
is difficult to determine. Obviously, if scores are low, some type of remediation is necessary, and
remediation, because it is labor intensive, requires money. But where is the point of diminishing
returns?
I imagine rural South Carolina children walking dusty roads, similar to the kind I walked near
Columbia, as they head to school, and I wonder, What do they think about all of this? I think
about booking Greyhound for a one-year crisscross through the US—a sociological study. Armed
with pencil and paper, and consent forms, I’d asked students, parents, and school dropouts about
their education and what they think they need or needed. Perhaps I’d find that Bobby Stepps is
right: Poverty is so debilitating in the US that it eats away at opportunity. Perhaps not. By giving
voice to the consumers of education, perhaps my book would add a perspective that is missing
from effecting a solution that has legitimacy in the eyes of the school children that it affects. For
now, though, a solution to South Carolina’s--and most states’--educational woes is in the hands of
a Circuit Court.
5